As the Budget emergency seems to have evaporated in the intervening years and Treasurer Scott MoMorrison has accepted even defended higher expenditure than any previous budget, it begs the question how much is to be believed from the macro-economic message frequently proffered from Canberra.  How much is genuine economic plan and how much is simply a key opportunity “to sell” a message that it is heavily at the mercy of the political and not the economic climate. It certainly couldn't be accused of being a reckless or pork barreling budget (not at least until the fiscal details are revealed after the election is called) but in its effort to win hearts and minds it is very much more “on message” than any daring economic plan. This budget offers very little in the way of big gifts, big savings or big ideas and precious little in the way of real infrastructure for Victoria.

The treasurer is wrong about embracing some nebulous plan for a transition economy and forgetting who wins and loses. For the majority, people are naturally more likely to focus on just how a budget affects them and how it will change their lives. For the majority of Ballarat residents the answer is there wasn’t not much in it for them.  Small business has quite a few reasons to be perky with its tax concessions and definitions. There might be some change in back-to-work programs and smokers have about 15 more reasons to give up, but beyond that it is not a budget reverberating with inspiration or largesse or likely to inspire outrage or gratitude. Perhaps that is exactly as intended. 

The populist problem of a budget at election time is the absence of big ideas which might reform funding models not because they intrinsically lack merit but that the clamour of public debate on contentious issues distracts from the specified election message and how a Government wants to be seen for that all important July vote.